Hi all,
With the upload of sqlite3 3.5.4 to experimental, I would like to ask
everyone who build depend on SQLite3, please test it as its inner
is changed a lot. Should be fine for the outer side, but please
read the details[1]. I could compile several packages against it,
but not being user of th
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 10:55:32AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:44:19 -0800
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Consider two libraries, libfoo and libbar. libfoo depends on libbar,
> > references functions from it and uses some of libbar's types in its own
> >
On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 02:50:32AM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
1) Should we include DOAP files from upstream in packages? (always?)
I think it's a good idea.
2) If so, where? (usr/share/doc sounds OK if they are only provided for sake
of completeness, while IMVHO if we want them to be globally
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:17:52 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [Manoj Srivastava]
>> Are these packages a drop in replacement for ispell?
> None of the spell checkers are drop in replacements for the others.
> Each program need to have support for ispell, aspell, myspell an
Hi developers,
While I'm packaging morla[1], I've found in the tarball tree a little XML file
named "doap.rdf", which turned out to be a DOAP[2][3] file. An apt-file query
(on 'sid', i386) showed me that there are at least three packages which
install such files:
flumotion: usr/share/doc/flumo
On 2007-12-25, Rudi Cilibrasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Package name: blm
> Description : compute set operations on line-oriented files: and, or,
> xor, and more.
What are the time and space complexities for the various operations?
--
Robert Edmonds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNS
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:54:32PM +, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>> I fail to understand this ITP, and all the objections - wether
>> or not we SHOULD is not the point as I see it. It's a matter
>> of CAN we.. ?
> Well I see points where we have to
On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 05:40:33PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:54:32PM +, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> > I fail to understand this ITP, and all the objections - wether
> > or not we SHOULD is not the point as I see it. It's a matter
> > of CAN we.. ?
>
> Well I
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:54:32PM +, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> I fail to understand this ITP, and all the objections - wether
> or not we SHOULD is not the point as I see it. It's a matter
> of CAN we.. ?
Well I see points where we have to ask if we _should_ support some
kind of software,
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rudi Cilibrasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: blm
Version : 0.9.0
Upstream Author : Rudi Cilibrasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://cilibrar.com/~cilibrar/projsup/blm-0.9.0.tar.gz
* License : BSD
Programming Lang
On lun, 2007-12-24 at 07:29 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> You should really get your facts straigt before feeding the FUD!
Please don’t scare us like that! I first thought that Jörg Schilling was
back on the list.
> Qmail is the most secure MTA out there. It's slick, and quite well
> written
On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> What about debtags? Wouldn't this be most appropriate?
> - It's optional.
> - It's available from the apt-cache.
> - No need to change dpkg, policy, etc.
Please see
http://debtags.alioth.debian.org/faq.html#any-reason-why-ther
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:46:11PM +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
> I agree this would be a really cool thing but it can be
> really hard to judge what is suitable for new contributors
> and what not, some people understand things pretty fast
> others do not and thus you could lose the chance to get
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 06:52:12PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> Anyway, I'm seeing that what I'm telling now has already been proposed for
> debian/copyright. The problem is still there though: the chance to see some
> information about the license of not installed packages not being
> connected
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 06:39:22PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Maybe the related question is: once the debian/copyright format is
> widespread enough, how can we make such an information available
> archive-wide mechanically?
Easy: apt-xapian-index.
It works like this:
1. Define what ki
Matthias Klose wrote:
> This is a proposal to introduce a common set of compiler options which
> can be set independently from the package, and passed/injected to the
> package build process. It was first discussed at the last UDS; a
> corresponding wiki page can be found at [1].
A change like th
[Manoj Srivastava]
> Are these packages a drop in replacement for ispell?
None of the spell checkers are drop in replacements for the others.
Each program need to have support for ispell, aspell, myspell and/or
hunspell. This is why I want us to try to get as many packages as
possible to switc
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 06:52:12PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> First of all, thank you for the kind reply. It seemed like the
> Christmas spirit has been blown away from this list.
Thank you for noticing, I still hope that exchanges like this have the
power of improving in the long run the debat
Il giorno Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:47:59 +0100
Michael Tautschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> What about debtags? Wouldn't this be most appropriate?
> - It's optional.
> - It's available from the apt-cache.
> - No need to change dpkg, policy, etc.
This might be a solution. Something like license
[...]
> > I understand your need, but in this case (as opposed to the others you
> > mention) I believe a new field is not the right solution. The reason is
> > that in the general case too many information would need to be encoded
> > in such a field; that's why a machine interpretable copyright
20 matches
Mail list logo
